By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant-insurance company has challenged the judgment and order dated 2nd July 1996 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in MAC Petition No.217 of 1993 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000 to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 2 The short facts of the present appeal are that the deceased – Bharatbhai was aged about 20 years and was driver of the Matador Van bearing registration No.GJ 4 T 5377. On the date of the incident I.e. on 15th May 1993 he was driving the said Matador which was loaded with red chillies and he was coming from Ranavav. When the said Matador reached village Dhasa at about 2.00 AM the said Matador was given a dash by a public carrier bearing No.GTX 4214 because of which Matador van turned turtle causing serious injuries to the deceased, son of claimant No.1 because of which he died on the spot. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000 per month by driving. The claimants, filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under various heads. The tribunal considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record has awarded Rs.3,00,000 to the claimants under various heads along with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of application till realisation, which is challenged by the insurance company by filing the present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Mr Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellant inter- alia challenged the judgment and award of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error in treating the nephews of deceased as his dependents and therefore the dependency benefit has been awarded erroneously. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the wife of the deceased was remarried and only mother of the deceased is the dependent and therefore the dependency benefit would come to Rs.1500 per month and Rs.18000 per year. He therefore submitted that considering the age of the mother of the deceased, a multiplier of 12 can be adopted and accordingly Rs.2,16,000 is to be awarded to the claimant under the head of future economic loss whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,88,000 under this head. He has also contended that the rate of interest at 15% is also on higher side and it should not be more than 9%.
5. Ms Jayshree Kadia, learned counsel for Mr Qureshi, learned counsel for the original claimants has supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for.
6. The Tribunal has considered Rs.3000 as the prospective income of the deceased and deducted 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses and treated Rs.2000 as the dependency benefit. In view of the decision of the Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 the Tribunal ought to have deducted ½ share as the mother was the only dependent on the deceased. Therefore, the monthly dependency benefit would come to Rs.1500 per month, Rs.18000 per year. Looking to the age of the mother, the proper multiplier would be 12 and therefore the total dependency benefit would come to Rs.2,16,000. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.10,000 towards loss to estate and Rs.5,000 towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,31,000 as against Rs.3 lakhs as awarded by the Tribunal.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and order dated 2nd July 1996 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in MAC Petition No.217 of 1993 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000 is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,31,000/- The excess amount is ordered to be refunded to the insurance company. Further, the rate of interest at 15% awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. The same is excessive looking to the decisions of the Apex Court and the same shall not be awarded more than 12%. Hence, it is required to be reduced and accordingly the rate of interest awarded is reduced to 12% per annum from 15% in both the appeals. The excess amount of 3% of interest will be refunded back to the appellant-insurance company if the same is deposited by the appellant with the Tribunal.
Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd